R v Artig Mwami Maweja Emmannuel

A conviction is not rendered unsafe merely because the jury were not shown a forensic report. Where the jury hear live evidence about the report’s findings, and the absence of supporting DNA evidence is clearly explained and fairly summed up, non-production of the report will not ordinarily assist the defence. A conviction may remain safe on a sufficient circumstantial case, even without identification evidence or CCTV showing the offending itself.

The applicant was convicted at the Crown Court at Oxford of five sexual assaults and received a total sentence of 48 weeks’ imprisonment. He renewed his application for leave to appeal against conviction after the single judge refused leave.

He argued that the conviction was unsafe because the DNA report was not placed before the jury, the CCTV did not show him committing the offences, no identification procedure had been conducted, and he had been unrepresented at trial. The central issue was whether the evidence disclosed an arguable basis for concluding that the convictions were unsafe.

1. Application refused. The Court of Appeal reviewed the matter afresh and agreed entirely with the single judge that the convictions were not arguably unsafe.
2. The absence of DNA evidence had been made absolutely clear to the jury. At the applicant’s request, it was the final piece of evidence addressed in the judge’s summing-up before the jury retired.
3. The jury heard live evidence about the DNA findings. The court held that showing them the underlying DNA report would not have assisted them. Evidence of this kind is rarely presented directly to a jury and may properly be given through live testimony, provided that the evidence is fairly summed up.
4. The court also accepted the circumstantial case identified by the single judge. CCTV placed the applicant in close proximity to each complainant shortly before or after the alleged assaults. The absence of identification evidence was explained by the offender having been masked. The evidence was sufficient to leave the convictions safe, notwithstanding that the CCTV did not show the assaults themselves and there was no DNA evidence.
5. Leave to appeal against conviction was refused.

• Crown Court at Oxford: the applicant was convicted of five sexual assaults on 21 September 2022 and sentenced on 21 October 2022.
• Single judge: refused leave to appeal, concluding that the convictions were not arguably unsafe.
• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): on renewal, agreed with the single judge and refused leave. The judgment is reported at [2024] EWCA Crim 212.